MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362486902 · doi:10.1117/12.2654234

Cautery tool state detection using deep learning on intraoperative surgery videos

2023· article· en· W4362486902 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas March, Jessica R. Rodgers, Rebecca Hisey, Amoon Jamzad, Alice Santilli, Doug McKay, John F. Rudan, Martin Kaufmann, Kevin Ren, Gábor Fichtinger, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMargin (machine learning)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceReceiver operating characteristicMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment for Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) includes an excisional surgery to remove cancerous tissues, using a cautery tool to make burns along a defined resection margin around the tumor. Margin evaluation occurs post-surgically, requiring repeat surgery if positive margins are detected. Rapid Evaporative Ionization Mass Spectrometry (REIMS) can help distinguish healthy and cancerous tissue but does not provide spatial information about the cautery tool location where the spectra are acquired. We propose using intraoperative surgical video recordings and deep learning to provide surgeons with guidance to locate sites of potential positive margins. Frames from 14 intraoperative videos of BCC surgery were extracted and used to train a sequence of networks. The first network extracts frames showing surgery in-progress, then, an object detection network localizes the cautery tool and resection margin. Finally, our burn prediction model leverages the effectiveness of both a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network and a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve to accurately predict when the surgeon is cutting. The cut identifications will be used in the future for synchronization with iKnife data to provide localizations when cuts are predicted. The model was trained with four-fold cross-validation on a patient-wise split between training, validation, and testing sets. Average recall over the four folds of testing for the LSTM and ROC were 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. The video-based approach is simple yet effective at identifying tool-to-skin contact instances and may help guide surgeons, enabling them to deliver precise treatments in combination with iKnife data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207